On Tuesday, May 2, 9:00 a.m. EDT, the Combat Antisemitism Movement is hosting a special online symposium to highlight the vital importance of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism and promote its continued growth and implementation.

.

Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus is a featured speaker for the event.

.

The forum will also feature representatives of entities that have adopted the definition sharing why they did so and how this positively impacted their work and society as a whole. Registration is open.

Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin was the featured speaker in an upcoming webinar produced by UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI Charitable Trust). The webinar is titled “Anti-Zionism as National Origin Discrimination with Alyza D. Lewin.” It takes place on Zoom on Sunday, April 30, 2023 at noon EDT.

The U.S. Department of Education recently announced a milestone Resolution Agreement with the University of Vermont in a case involving anti-Semitic harassment. It was alleged that the University failed to respond adequately to anti-Zionist harassment and discrimination. The agreement requires the University to recognize and address anti-Zionist harassment as a form of national origin discrimination based on shared ancestry.

Alyza D. Lewin, president of The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, the organization that filed the University of Vermont complaint, discussed how the case can serve as a model for global efforts to protect Jews from “new anti-Semitism.”

Watch the webinar and download the source sheet provided to attendees.

UKLFI-Source-Sheet-Anti-Zionism-as-National-Origin-Discrimination-April-30-2023Download


.

Written by Andrew Bernard for The Algemeiner; published 4/18/23.

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Groff v. DeJoy, a religious accommodation in the workplace lawsuit with significant ramifications for observant Jews, experts told The Algemeiner.

.

Algemeiner square logoGerald Groff, an evangelical Christian who observes a Sunday Sabbath during which he is not permitted to work according to his beliefs, sued his former employer, Louis DeJoy, the US Postmaster General, after Groff was forced to quit his job when the post office forced him to work on Sunday.  Groff was required to work on Sundays after the USPS signed a contract with Amazon that included Sunday deliveries. He launched his religious discrimination suit after two years of ad-hoc accommodations failed to meet his religious needs.

.

Under the existing standard in the 1977 case TWA v. Hardison, employers need only show that they are suffering a small, “de minimis cost”, like providing overtime pay for weekend shifts or having to reduce operations during a holiday, before any religious accommodation of an employee becomes an “undue hardship” that they are not legally required to meet. Groff’s lawyers argued that that standard should be overturned.

.

Nathan Diament, Executive Director for Public Policy at the Orthodox Union and one of the co-authors of an amicus brief in the case, told The Algemeiner that should Hardison be overturned, the impact would extend far beyond Evangelical Sunday Sabbatarians.

.

“Just think about Passover over the last two weeks,” Diament said. “If you were an observant Jew, the days of Passover fell on Thursday and Friday, and then on Wednesday and Thursday the following week. A lot of employers are accommodating, but if you’re working in a job where you don’t have an accommodating employer, and generally you’re assigned to work on specific days, on specific shifts, having four holidays where you can’t work in a two week period is really challenging.”

.

The Orthodox Union, which filed its amicus brief jointly with the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, was joined in its support of Groff by other Jewish groups including the American Jewish Committee, the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, and The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, as well as Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Sikh, and Islamic groups.

.

Kenneth Marcus, founder of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and another of the amici for Groff, said that despite the sympathies of the conservative majority on the court for religious liberty claims, today’s oral arguments sent mixed signals about how the court might ultimately rule.

.

“On the one hand, it is great to see that there is significant opposition to the awful de minimis rule, under which employers have been able to escape responsibility for protecting their religious employees if reasonable accommodations would cost any amount of money,” Marcus said. “The de minimis standard, which we have long opposed, seems to have very little support anymore, and I think we can anticipate that its days are numbered. That’s very good news for anyone who cares about religious freedoms. On the other hand, it was disappointing to see so little support on the court for the strong new standard of religious freedom that many of us had hoped for and expected. Some of the conservative justices were more skeptical of Mr. Groff’s position than many would have anticipated and that may not bode well for religious freedom.”

.

During the arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the government, had an extended discussion about “common ground” between the parties and whether the court needed to issue an expansive ruling to resolve the question.

.

“I would just wonder whether the Court needs to get into that today,” Gorsuch asked. “If there is so much common ground here between the parties and Hardison that… some courts have taken this ‘de minimis’ language and run with it and say ‘anything more than a trifling will get the employer out of any concerns here’, and that’s wrong and we all agree that’s wrong, why can’t we just say that and be done with it and be silent as to the rest of it?”

.

The exchange was one of many that saw justices from both the left and right testing positions seemingly at odds with their ideological priors.

.

“It was jarring to see both the Biden administration and the Democratic-appointed justices argue so forcefully against a basic civil right, namely the right to religious freedom.” Marcus said. “That’s not something one would have expected a generation ago, but it increasingly reflects the polarization of support for religious freedom. It was surprising to hear progressive justices express so much concern for profit making motivations of corporations in the context of wanting to protect them against demands from religious minority employees. One would never hear that if the minority employees were racial or ethnic minorities.”

.

While the outcome of the case remains unknown, the OU’s Diament was confident that the changes would be positive.

.

“We would like as broad a decision as we can get,” he said. “But the bottom line will be whatever decision the court puts out – unless it just totally rejects the appeal and sides with the government – any change here is going to be significant and welcome.”

.

The court’s decision is expected to be announced before the conclusion of its term at the end of June.

Contact: Nicole Rosen

202-309-5724

.

First Time Biden Administration Has Applied Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to Anti-Zionist Discrimination

.

Washington, D.C., (April 4, 2023): Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center, and Alyza D. Lewin, president of the Brandeis Center, issued the following statements today in response to the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Resolution Letter and Agreement requiring the University of Vermont (UVM) to make substantial changes after failing to respond to numerous complaints of anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination:

.

Marcus

“As the Jewish community prepares for our Passover holiday, we can celebrate this milestone victory in the battle against campus anti-Semitism. If my OCR successor, Assistant Secretary of Education Catherine Lhamon, had only found that our complaint raised serious civil rights concerns, it would have been enough. If she had only required UVM to enter into a robust and substantial resolution agreement to resolve our claims, it would have been enough. If she had only reiterated our claims relative to anti-Zionism, and indicated that these claims needed to be addressed promptly and effectively, it would have been enough. What she has in fact done is to signal to the higher education community that Jewish students must be given the same protections as any other group, including when they face harassment based on Zionist identity. We are thankful that OCR, under Ms. Lhamon, has sent a strong message to colleges and universities: they must not tolerate anti-Semitism. If they do, they will be held accountable.” 

.

Lewin

“The UVM resolution agreement is not only significant, it is truly historic and precedent-setting.  It demonstrates that OCR takes seriously a prevailing form of anti-Semitism on campus, anti-Semitism that masks as anti-Zionism. It is not sufficient to protect Jews on the basis of their religious practice. Judaism is an ethno-religion and Jews are protected by law from discrimination that targets them on the basis of their Jewish peoplehood and the Jews’ shared ancestral ethnic heritage, which is inextricably linked to the land of Israel. We applaud OCR for recognizing this and for using the resolution of our complaint at UVM to send a strong message to all schools across the country that this type of anti-Semitism cannot be ignored. It is particularly fortuitous that this resolution was reached on the eve of Passover, a time when Jews around the globe celebrate the shared memory that binds Jews together as a people, the Jewish exodus from slavery to freedom and the emergence of the Jewish nation.”

.

OCR announced yesterday that the complaint is resolved, with UVM agreeing to implement several critical reforms, including requiring the university to make clear in its anti-discrimination policies and trainings that anti-Semitic discrimination against Jews includes discrimination that is based on the Jews shared ancestry and ethnicity.

.

The Brandeis Center points out that what is significant here is OCR’s strong response to a complaint that emphasized the shunning, marginalization, exclusion and bullying of Jewish students for whom Zionism is an essential component of their identity. OCR made abundantly clear that the University had not done what was necessary to protect these students, and it has insisted in the resolution on changes to prevent this inaction in the future. In fact, OCR warned that the University’s failure to investigate appropriately may have “allowed a hostile environment for some Jewish students to persist at the University.”

.

The Brandeis Center adds that while what OCR did is a significant milestone, this is just a first step for UVM. OCR must carefully monitor the University’s compliance to ensure that its promises are not just empty words. The University will need to carry through and take concrete actions to protect Jewish students if it is to improve the climate on campus.

.

After hearing personal accounts from numerous students about pervasive anti-Semitism at UVM, the Brandeis Center, in conjunction with Jewish on Campus, filed the Title VI complaint that led OCR to open the investigation that resulted in this resolution.

.

To view this statement as a PDF, click here.

.

The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law is an independent, unaffiliated, nonprofit corporation established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. LDB engages in research, education, and legal advocacy to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism on college and university campuses, in the workplace, and elsewhere. It empowers students by training them to understand their legal rights and educates administrators and employers on best practices to combat racism and anti-Semitism. The Brandeis Center is not affiliated with the Massachusetts university, the Kentucky law school, or any of the other institutions that share the name and honor the memory of the late U.S. Supreme Court justice.

By Marc Rod for Jewish Insider — April 4, 2023

.

A potential rules change at the Department of Education could undermine regulations that have been used to protect Jewish students’ rights on campus, Ken Marcus, the chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, cautioned last week.

.

The Department of Education (ED) recently solicited comments regarding regulations, implemented during the Trump administration, that conditioned grants to higher education institutions on upholding students’ free speech rights. At public schools, these conditions were tied to First Amendment protections, while at private schools they were linked to enforcement of the schools’ own free expression policies. If students could prove in court that their rights had been violated, ED could penalize the schools for noncompliance with the grant conditions.

.

“This was a potentially big deal because, much of the time, it really isn’t worthwhile for students to seek legal remedies for censorship because there’s not much in the way of money damages,” Marcus explained. “The idea is that this provided a great deal of leverage that would require universities to take these complaints much more seriously.”

.

The Brandeis Center, which has provided legal support to Jewish students who have faced alleged discrimination on campus, filed a letter with the Department in response to its request for information.

.

Marcus told Jewish Insider that repealing these protections would remove a tool that has been used to protect Jewish and pro-Israel students. He pointed specifically to the 2021 case of Duke University, where a pro-Israel club was denied recognition based on its views. The Duke student government reversed course in 2022 and voted to recognize the group.

.

“We were able to insist that the university reverse itself because otherwise this would be a free speech violation that could lead to significant liability for the university,” he said. “This gave the Jewish pro-Israel students a much more powerful tool than they otherwise would have had to address the silencing of pro-Israel perspectives.”

.

Marcus said that, in some cases, Jewish students are able to bring claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Trump administration issued new rules explicitly including antisemitism as a prohibited form of discrimination under this law. But in other cases, he added, “the stronger claim is based on the freedom of speech.”

.

“This isn’t the most powerful weapon that we have against anti-Jewish activity on college campuses, but it is an important one,” Marcus said.

.

Benjamin Ryberg, the COO of the Lawfare Project, which has also provided legal counsel to Jewish students, told JI, “Unless some sort of harm or downside from these conditions is identified, who would object to enhancing protections for free expression on campus for anybody, including minority groups?” Ryberg said.

.

Marcus argued that the Biden administration’s request for an inquiry suggests it intends to repeal the regulation altogether.

.

ED’s request for information states that stakeholders had raised concerns that elements of the regulation “unnecessarily go beyond what is required by the courts, encourage campus community members to pursue litigation more frequently and undermine existing campus procedures,” adding additional costs for schools. The document further alleges that the regulations “may incentivize private colleges to limit, eliminate, or reconsider their policies on free speech for fear of losing grant funds.”

.

Marcus argued that the latter point “assumes they’re not actually going to honor their free speech policies,” calling the argument “extraordinary.”

.

ED also noted that the First Amendment already guarantees students’ rights, without these additional regulations, and that schools, students and courts “have historically been responsible for resolving disputes relating to these complex matters where these important principles intersect.”

.

The Department of Education did not respond to a request for comment.

.
ED is separately seeking to roll back protections for religious student groups on campuses, which also fall under the free inquiry rule. Critics of the student group rule say that it requires schools to allow religious groups to engage in discrimination, while proponents say it helps protect faith communities on campus

 

The Brandeis Center filed a friend of the court brief in an upcoming Supreme Court case that could change how employees’ religious observance rights are treated by employers. We coordinated a letter from an extended coalition of leading Jewish American national and international organizations chastising a U.S. rugby team for its participation in an international tournament that is discriminating against Israel. And the Bronx Defenders will now require its employees to participate in anti-Semitism training conducted by the Brandeis Center.

. 

Brandeis Center Urges SCOTUS to Protect Employees’ Religious Observance Rights

. 
An upcoming Supreme Court case, Groff v. DeJoy, will decide whether to make it more difficult for employers to deny religious accommodations in the workplace. The Brandeis Center filed a friend of the court brief, urging it to protect employee’s rights by enabling them to receive workplace accommodations for their religious practices.
. 
Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcusexplained that the current standard – allowing employers to decide for almost any reason to deny accommodations – denies religious protections to Orthodox Jews. The standard is: “completely different than what it requires in other cases involving other groups. We’ve argued for a more even-handed or equitable treatment.”
. 
Overall, the Brandeis Center sees the number of workplace anti-Semitism cases on the rise. “It’s going to be really important to make sure that Jewish workers have the tools that they need to prevent unequal treatment. [A new religious accommodations standard] is one the tools that they will need.”

. 

Brandeis Center Leads Group of Jewish American National and International Organizations Urging U.S. Rugby Team Not to Participate in Discriminatory Competition
. 
The Brandeis Center, who is representing the Tel Aviv Heat, called on individual rugby unions to reject SARU’s discriminatory behavior.
. 
Before the tournament was set to begin, the Brandeis Center coordinated a letter from the following organizations chastising an American rugby team for its participation in the tournament:
. 
The American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists
The American Jewish Committee
The Anti-Defamation League
Christians United for Israel Action Fund
Combat Antisemitism Movement
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Israeli-American Coalition for Action
Jewish Federations of North America
Simon Wiesenthal Center
StandWithUs
Zionist Organization of America

“The appearance is that an American team is benefiting from discrimination by filling a void created in large measure by the exclusion of the Israeli team,” stated the 11 groups that signed the Brandeis Center’s letter. “This creates the impression that both your team and USA Rugby support the discriminatory treatment of the Heat — in violation of USA Rugby’s values, the values of international sports, and fundamental American values.”

. 

Brandeis Center to Give Anti-Semitism Training to Bronx Defenders

. 
The Bronx Defenders has agreed to provide anti-Semitism training to all of its employees as part of a settlement with a Jewish employee who was allegedly called a “racist” and “colonizer” for supporting Israel .
. 
Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin explained how biased corporate Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs contribute to workplace anti-Semitism. Sometimes, “they go beyond just leaving out Jews and anti-Semitism, and inadvertently foster a hostility to Jews because they will treat all Jews as powerful, white oppressors and repeat what are really traditional anti-Jewish stereotypes.”
. 
Explaining the Brandeis Center-led training all Bronx Defenders employees will receive, Lewin stated: “I think that when they learn how anti-Semitism manifests itself, they will begin to understand what anti-Semitism is and how to recognize it.”

. 

Kenneth L. Marcus Praises Efforts to Address Anti-Semitic Hate Crimes in Florida

Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus affirmed a Florida hate crimes bill being considered by the state’s legislature, “is an excellent effort to address a very serious current social problem in Florida and around the country, which is the resurgence of anti-Semitism.”

. 
Marcus emphasized the need to ensure any new legislation comply with constitutional requirements – and urged Jewish Americans to stand strong in the face of unjust criticisms: “There are some white supremacists who are accusing Jews of trying to suppress their speech and undermine the Constitution. This is the same old conspiratorial antisemitic racism that we’ve heard for years and years. Anytime the Jewish community raises its voice to speak out against injustice, others will accuse Jewish Americans of being overly powerful and malignant. The important thing is for the Jewish community to stand our ground, we can’t let this intimidate us. We can’t let this be the basis on which we shrink from fighting an important fight.”

. 

Brandeis Center Commends Senators for Condemning Anti-Semitism in Mideast Studies Programs
. 

The Brandeis Center commended 15 U.S. Senators for authoring a letter to U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona highlighting concerns about taxpayer-funded anti-Semitic activity on campus, specifically in Middle East Studies programs that receive federal funds under Title VI of the Higher Education Act (HEA). Led by Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, the fifteen U.S. Senators demanded to know “to what extent” federal dollars went to programs and events that meet the internationally-accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism.
. 
Title VI of the HEA requires federally funded area studies programs “to reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of views.” But as the Brandeis Center noted, “It is apparent that many of the federally funded Near East and Middle East Studies programs show extraordinary bias against Israel and have been driving increased anti-Semitism in American higher education.”
. 

“Sen. Risch and his colleagues have taken an important step in ensuring that the Department of Education maintains its dedication to promoting diversity and that federally funded programs are held accountable if they do engage in anti-Semitism,” declared the Brandeis Center.

. 

Marcus Continues to Hold FBI Accountable for Botched Anti-Semitic Hate Crimes Data

When the FBI released a do-over report on 2021 hate crimes statistics, it showed a 20% surge in anti-Semitic hate crimes – far from the decrease the FBI’s initial botched report claimed.
. 
The Brandeis Center first raised concerns about the FBI’s egregious errors following the release of its erroneous hate crimes data report in December 2022. Following the release of the Bureau’s supplemental report, Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus continues to hold the FBI accountable for botching the data in the first place: “We’re glad to see the Biden administration is finally cleaning up the mess from last year’s disastrous FBI hate crimes report. That report demonstrated extraordinary ineptitude at the Department of Justice, as well as in many local jurisdictions.”

. 

Marcus Chides American Bar Association for Failing to Adopt IHRA Anti-Semitism Definition
. 

Last month, the American Bar Association made an 11th hour decision to remove the internationally accepted IHRA working definition of antisemitism from its resolution condemning Jew-hatred.
. 

Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus criticized the body for its misguided action: “It would have been far more useful if they could have written a stronger statement that incorporated the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. A resolution that doesn’t recognize and acknowledge contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism, the form we are seeing on the rise on campus and in the workplace, misses a huge chunk of the problem.” The Brandeis Center sent a letter to all members of the ABA House of Delegates before their vote on the resolution, explaining the importance of the IHRA Definition.

. 

Alyza D. Lewin Questions Ben & Jerry’s Commitment to Social Justice as Ice Cream company Faces Child Labor Lawsuit
. 

The Ben & Jerry’s independent board of directors has touted its commitment to “social justice” as justification for its attempt to engage in an unlawful boycott of Israel. The board was prevented from doing so by the settlement agreement the Brandeis Center negotiated with Ben & Jerry’s parent company, Unilever, on behalf of client Avi Zinger, the CEO of Ben & Jerry’s Israel.
. 

Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin pointed out the hypocrisy in Ben & Jerry’s selective social justice priorities – when a lawsuit alleging the ice cream brand uses child labor came to light: “This information that’s now come out about the immigrant child workers does kind of confirm the hypocrisy of the whole episode with Israel. What you had was a board that caved to BDS pressure and it was never about trying to help Palestinians. If you’re going to go out there and claim that you’re all about social justice, then where is your voice now when it comes to these poor children?”

. 

Lewin Discusses ‘Combating the Rapid Rise of Anti-Semitism in the U.S.’ on EMET Webinar
. 
President Alyza D. Lewin joined EMET Founder and President Sarah Stern for a discussion how – from university campuses to corporate boardrooms – the Brandeis Center uses legal tools to address the growing scourge of anti-Semitism. Their conversation can help you know your rights and learn how the law can make a difference.

. 

The Brandeis Center Calls on the University of Pennsylvania to Condemn anti-Semitic speech on Campus
. 
At the request of several Jewish students, the Brandeis Center sent a letter to Penn’s president about a planned campus event with Mohammed El Kurd, explaining the university’s obligation to use its own voice to condemn anti-Semitic hate speech that targets Jewish community members, as well as to educate the campus community about contemporary forms of anti-Semitism.
. 
“We write not to urge the University to prevent Mr. El-Kurd from speaking at Penn. Rather we urge the University to be prepared to speak out promptly and clearly against such anti-Semitic rhetoric, and to use this disgraceful event as a teaching moment to educate the University community about the world’s oldest form of hatred, anti-Semitism. The remedy for hate speech is neither to silence it nor to remain silent. Instead, the University should use its own voice to clearly and unequivocally condemn anti-Semitic speech that runs counter to the University’s values of ‘inclusivity,’ ‘dignity and respect,’ and that threatens to create a hostile environment for Jewish students on campus.”

. 

Brandeis Center Hires Policy Director Emma Enig
. 
The Brandeis Center announced the appointment of Emma Enig as the organization’s first-ever Director of Policy Education.
. 
“As the Louis D. Brandeis Center expands to address the growing problem of anti-Semitism, we are pleased to strengthen our public policy and civil education capabilities with this key hire,” said Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “Decisionmakers need to understand both the nature and scope of current anti-Semitism and also the legal and policy tools that are needed to address it. Emma Enig is a skilled professional who will help the Brandeis Center to ensure that those who need our educational resources are able to get them.”
. 
“Emma…is extremely well versed in our issues and, therefore, uniquely qualified for this position,” declared President Alyza D. Lewin. “One of our greatest challenges in combatting anti-Semitism, is that most people don’t recognize anti-Semitism or understand how to utilize legal and policy tools to address it. We have, therefore, created this new role to expand our educational programming to address this crucial need. I’m excited to work with Emma as we develop and grow this important Brandeis Center initiative.”

. 

Brandeis Center Intern Blog Details Latest IHRA Definition Adoptions
. 
In her latest blog, Brandeis Center Intern Danielle Sobkin documents a slew of IHRA adoptions at the state, local and international levels – noting a major milestone passed – more than 1,100 adoptions – and further U.S. support for IHRA.

Authored by Eve Glover and published in the Israel National News on March 31, 2023.

.

Updated FBI data shows a 20 percent increase in antisemitic hate crimes from 2020 to 2021, and ADL statistics show a 36 percent increase in antisemitic incidents in 2022 from the previous year.

.

According to the ADL, Florida alone has seen an alarming 50 percent increase in 2021 from the previous year. On New Year’s Eve, a glaring message stating “Vax the Jews” was projected onto the top of an office building in downtown Orlando.

.

Less than two weeks later, on January 14, two masked individuals projected illuminated images of a swastika and antisemitic messages like “Antisemitism is self-defense” and “Jews did 9-11. The FBI helped” onto an AT&T building from a rental truck.

.

The illuminated hateful words, “Jews are wrecking the USA” appeared on a Wells Fargo building in Jacksonville the same weekend. Neo-Nazi groups, The Goyim Defense League (GDL) and National Socialism Florida (NSF) were reportedly responsible for these incidents.

.

Contact: Nicole Rosen

202-309-5724

.

Cite Impression US Team and USA Rugby Support Discrimination

.

Washington, D.C. (March 24, 2023): In a letter organized by The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, major Jewish organizations today urged the U.S. team, the San Clemente Rhinos, to pull out of tomorrow’s Mzansi Challenge competition in South Africa.   The organizations note that there is an appearance the Rhinos are benefiting from, and essentially endorsing, South Africa Rugby Union’s (SARU) anti-Semitic exclusion of Israel’s first Rugby team.

.

“Your obligation to lead on this issue is particularly pressing because there is an unacceptable appearance that the San Clemente Rhinos are benefiting from discrimination against the Heat,” wrote the organizations. “While another team has also quit the competition, the appearance is that an American team is benefiting from discrimination by filling a void created in large measure by the exclusion of the Israeli team. This creates the impression that both your team and USA Rugby support the discriminatory treatment of the Heat – in violation of USA Rugby’s values, the values of international sports, and fundamental American values. It would be a significant mistake for you to participate in a discriminatory competition.”

.

The letter was signed by the Brandeis Center, American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Christians United for Israel Action Fund, Combat Antisemitism Movement, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations Israeli-American Coalition for Action, Jewish Federations of North America, Simon Wiesenthal Center, StandWithUs, and Zionist Organization of America. The Brandeis Center is the Heat’s new legal team.

.

The Heat were confirmed to participate in the tournament for months until BDS activists pressured SARU. In the face of this pressure, SARU quickly reversed itself and excluded the Heat from the competition. The South African BDS Coalition posted on Twitter, “BDS works!,” above text referring to SARU’s decision. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel thanked BDS activists “for standing up for Palestinian rights and taking swift action to compel SARU to reverse the misguided decision” to invite the Heat. South African newspaper Al-Qalam titled its coverage of the Heat’s exclusion, “Victory for SA BDS Coalition and Palestine Solidarity.” And the South African National Union of Metalworkers declared, “The decision was reversed because of pressure, particularly from organizations like the BDS Coalition who launched a public campaign rejecting” the Heat’s invitation.

.

The letter emphasizes that sports are meant to be inclusive, and international sports have repeatedly rejected discrimination against Israeli teams and athletes.  For example, the World Paralympic Committee relocated its 2019 Swimming Championships out of Malaysia to the United Kingdom because Malaysia had not agreed to permit Israeli athletes to compete.  Judo events scheduled to be held in Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates have been cancelled because the host countries would not allow the Israeli flag to be raised. The 2019 World Schools Chess Championship, scheduled to be held in Tunisia, was eventually held in Turkey instead after Tunisian authorities refused to grant a visa to an Israeli competitor.

.

“Attempts to discriminate against Jewish or Israeli athletes have been unsuccessful in large part because the international community quickly and forcefully expressed their outrage,” noted the organizations. “The Rhinos and USA Rugby must do the same. The United States is a global leader in sports and the host of the 2031 Rugby World Cup. The participation of the Rhinos in the Mzansi Challenge under these circumstances would undermine the ability of USA Rugby to take its proper role in international sports.”

.

The Brandeis Center, last week, called on the World Rugby Union, which is investigating the matter, to overrule SARU’s discriminatory decision, direct SARU to apologize for its discriminatory act, and impose any sanctions they deem appropriate under the rules.  The World Rugby Union bylaws explicitly prohibit “discrimination of any kind against a country, or against a private person or groups of people including on account of age, gender, marital status, maternity status, disability, race (including color, nationality, ethnic or national origin), religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation or any other reason.”

.

To view this press release as a PDF, click here.

.

The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law is an independent, unaffiliated, nonprofit corporation established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. LDB engages in research, education, and legal advocacy to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism on college and university campuses, in the workplace, and elsewhere. It empowers students by training them to understand their legal rights and educates administrators and employers on best practices to combat racism and anti-Semitism. The Brandeis Center is not affiliated with the Massachusetts university, the Kentucky law school, or any of the other institutions that share the name and honor the memory of the late U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Authored by Luke Tress and published in The Times of Israel on March 20, 2023

.

Ben & Jerry’s has been hit with a class action lawsuit and charges of hypocrisy for the use of child labor in its supply chain, despite the ice cream maker’s declared commitment to social justice causes, an image it holds up as a key part of its branding.

.

The company’s involvement with child labor came to light shortly after it settled a high-profile legal battle with its parent firm over an attempted boycott against Israel, which Israel supporters viewed as prejudiced. The Ben & Jerry’s board responsible for the boycott has stayed mum about the labor issue, while its leader has continued to take shots at Israel.

.

The Vermont-based company claimed in recent filings that it did not use child labor in its supply chain and has avoided divulging when it found out about the matter.

.

The labor issue surfaced publicly in a New York Times investigation late last month. The report revealed that American corporations and their suppliers use underage migrant laborers for dangerous and grueling factory jobs, including in dairy facilities that supply Ben & Jerry’s.

.

Many of the children fled destitution in Central America, arrived in the US as unaccompanied minors, and were then exploited for labor. They work to pay off debts to smugglers, send cash to their families back home, and pay for living costs. The jobs keep many of them out of school. The US Department of Labor said it would take action to rein in illegal child migrant labor in response to the report.

.

The injury rate for dairy facilities is twice the national average compared to all industries, said the report, which included testimony from a boy who crushed his hand in an industrial milking machine in Vermont.

.

The state’s labor laws allow anyone over 16 to do any work in agriculture, and bar those under that age from doing any hazardous jobs. There is no evidence that Ben & Jerry’s, or its suppliers, violated labor laws.

.

A Ben & Jerry’s representative appeared to acknowledge the issue to the New York Times, saying the company cooperated with labor groups to monitor working conditions at its suppliers and claiming that if migrant children needed to work full time, it was better for them to work at a well-monitored workplace.

.

In response to the report, a plaintiff filed a federal class action lawsuit against Ben & Jerry’s in a New York court, claiming the company had misrepresented its ethical commitments to consumers.

.

The case argues that Ben & Jerry’s charges a premium for its products, partly based on its image as a socially conscious company, and that consumers would not have bought from the company, or paid as much, if they had been aware of its suppliers’ use of child labor. The plaintiff, Dovid Tyrnauer, sought damages and other commitments from Ben & Jerry’s for breach of trust.

.

During the legal proceedings involving the company’s attempted boycott, Ben & Jerry’s repeatedly argued, including in the same New York court where the class action lawsuit was filed, that its conscientious image was a core part of its business strategy and financial success.

.

“While Ben & Jerry’s purports to use ethical supply chains and professes concern about farmworker welfare, the reality could not be further from the truth. Migrant child labor is used in Ben & Jerry’s supply chains,” the lawsuit claimed. “Ben & Jerry’s wishes to have its ice cream and eat it too. It wishes to sell premium priced products with pompous virtue-signaling representations regarding its supposedly ethical sourcing, all the while migrant child labor is used in its supply chains. Put simply, this is a case about greed run amok.”

.

“The premiums that consumers pay for allegedly ethically-sourced products, in this instance, are not justified and constitute a breach of consumer trust through the misrepresentations,” the lawsuit said.

.

The lawyers for the plaintiff did not respond to a request for comment, and Ben & Jerry’s did not yet have legal representation listed in the case.

.

After the New York Times report, Ben & Jerry’s issued a statement opposing child labor and highlighting the company’s ethical commitments and ties with workers’ rights groups. The statement did not deny the use of child labor by the company’s suppliers, or that Ben & Jerry’s was aware of the issue.

.

“We are deeply concerned by the claims made in this story, and do not tolerate any suppliers who are not adhering to the law. Let us be extremely clear: Ben & Jerry’s stands in strong opposition to child labor,” the statement said.

.

Contacted for comment about the class action lawsuit, Ben & Jerry’s referred The Times of Israel to the previous statement, and did not answer specific questions, including about when the company became aware of child workers in its supply chain.

.

The company’s prior knowledge of the issue is significant because it certified in filings submitted in January that its suppliers did not use child labor. The disclosure was for the company’s registration as a B Corporation, a private certification that verifies a company’s “high standards of social and environmental performance.” Ben & Jerry’s also said in 2017 filings that its employee handbook barred the use of child labor.

.

The Ben & Jerry’s independent board tasked with protecting the company’s “social mission,” which decided to boycott Israeli settlements, has not commented on the child labor issue. A company spokesperson said the statement responding to the New York Times investigation was not attributable to the board.

.

The board’s chair, Anuradha Mittal, has not publicly commented, but has repeatedly shared anti-Israel content on Twitter since the child labor issue came to light. Mittal has a pro-intifada poster on her office wall.

.

Alyza Lewin, a lawyer for Ben & Jerry’s Israel in its lawsuit against the boycott, said the child labor allegations had exposed the company’s double-standard when it comes to Israel.

“This information that’s now come out about the immigrant child workers does kind of confirm the hypocrisy of the whole episode with Israel,” Lewin said. “What you had was a board that caved to BDS pressure and it was never about trying to help Palestinians.”

.

“If you’re going to go out there and claim that you’re all about social justice, then where is your voice now when it comes to these poor children?” Lewin said.

.

The head of Ben & Jerry’s Israel, Avi Zinger, who waged a successful legal battle against the boycott, has said the move hurt Palestinians, including employees, consumers, and his West Bank business partner.

.

The Ben & Jerry’s board announced its decision to boycott “occupied Palestinian territory” in July 2021, following Israel’s war that year with Gaza-based terrorists and after a heavy social media campaign against the company. Israeli laws bar discrimination against citizens based on where they live, meaning a boycott of settlements would amount to a ban on selling anywhere in Israel.

.

The decision set off a convoluted legal battle and heavy repercussions for Unilever, the Ben & Jerry’s parent company, as US states enacted anti-BDS divestment laws, pulling hundreds of millions of dollars in investments from the UK conglomerate.

.

The ice cream maker’s decision to boycott “occupied territory” sparked uproar in Israel and among some US Jewish groups. Critics of the boycott argued it was antisemitic because the company has never attempted to boycott any other region of the world.

.

Supporters of the boycott Israel movement say that in urging businesses, artists, and universities to sever ties with Israel, they are using nonviolent means to oppose unjust policies toward Palestinians. Israel says the movement masks its motives to delegitimize and destroy the Jewish state.

.

Zinger and Ben & Jerry’s Israel refused to comply with the settlement boycott, arguing it was illegal under Israeli and US law. Their license to sell the ice cream was only set to expire at the end of 2022, meaning the boycott never went into effect.

.

Ben & Jerry’s Israel sued Unilever over the dispute in the US, claiming Unilever unlawfully terminated their business contract. Months later, Unilever settled with Ben & Jerry’s Israel, granting the Israeli branch independence to sell its products indefinitely in Israel and the West Bank, using Hebrew and Arabic branding. Under the agreement, Ben & Jerry’s has no authority over the Israeli franchise.

.

Unilever has said the board had announced the settlement boycott without consulting with the parent company.

.

Shortly after that agreement was announced, Ben & Jerry’s sought to block the deal by suing Conopco, the main US branch of Unilever, arguing that Unilever had breached its acquisition deal with Ben & Jerry’s. The unusual 2000 merger agreement gave the ice cream maker’s board the authority to protect the company’s “social mission.” The lawsuit marked an unprecedented legal dispute between a major company and its parent corporation.

.

Unilever said it had resolved its dispute with Ben & Jerry’s in December without specifying the terms of the agreement. The case had appeared to be going against Ben & Jerry’s before the deal was announced.

.

Zinger said he was “pleased” the litigation had been resolved, and Ben & Jerry’s and its board did not comment.

.

The Jewish founders of Ben & Jerry’s, who no longer run the company, have said Unilever “usurped their authority” by spinning off the Israel branch.

.

The case has illustrated the pitfalls of progressive corporate activism, the risks for companies attempting to boycott Israel and the growing role of corporate investing in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in the US.

Last month, the British Parliament released a comprehensive report on the findings and recommendations of the taskforce on anti-Semitism in higher education in the UK. The taskforce was established by Lord Mann, the Government’s independent advisor on anti-Semitism, in collaboration with the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against anti-Semitism. The taskforce met with a range of stakeholders in higher education and the Jewish community, and also spoke with students and staff from 56 universities across the UK, including the top 20 institutions.

The taskforce found that although Jewish students generally have a positive university experience, they are significantly impacted by rising campus anti-Semitism, particularly relating to Zionism and Israel. Students reported negative attitudes and behaviors towards those who identify or are perceived to identify as Zionists, leading Jewish students to hide their identity and refrain from engaging in certain lectures and discussions. Furthermore, students expressed dissatisfaction with issues where universities had failed to accommodate their religious needs such as inaccessible electronic door locks during the Sabbath and the scheduling of important university events during the Jewish High Holidays.

Palace of Westminster, Big Ben, and Westminster Bridge as seen from the south bank of the River Thames. The Palace of Westminster serves as the meeting place for the UK Parliament.

The report also highlights the experiences of Jewish staff, many of whom hesitate to openly identify as Jewish due to potential harm to their professional relationships. This fear was particularly acute for Israeli academics and those in the humanities. Jewish staff also raised concerns about the lack of a centralized network to represent them in discussions, as many feel that the UCU (University and College Union) is no longer a safe and accepting space for Jewish individuals. 

The report’s findings largely mirror data about campus anti-Semitism in the United States. For instance, in the first poll to specifically examine rates of anti-Semitism among college students who claim a strong sense of Jewish identity and connection to Israel, the Brandeis Center found that 65% have felt unsafe on campus, and 50% have actively hid their identity. Nearly one third of Jewish students report personally experiencing anti-Semitism directed at them or a member of the campus community in the past year, according to a 2021 study. And many universities, including Stanford, have also been criticized by the Jewish community for starting their academic year on Rosh Hashanah.

Alongside their findings, the taskforce provides several recommendations to combat anti-Semitism on university campuses. Most notably, the taskforce urges universities to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism as a crucial step in identifying anti-Semitism on campus. The taskforce notes that it became evident in focus group discussions that the adoption of this definition plays a pivotal role in building trust with the Jewish community, as it is perceived as a significant indicator of a university’s dedication to safeguarding Jewish students and faculty. Encouragingly, the taskforce notes that all 56 universities have embraced the IHRA definition, and that “the definition has neither compromised nor chilled free speech in any of the 56 Universities with which we engaged,” refuting opposing claims.

Additionally, the taskforce recommends comprehensive anti-Semitism awareness training for staff, students, union managers, and trade unions. This recommendation aligns with the recommendations of the U.S. National Strategy, released by the Biden Administration, which calls on employers including K-12 schools and universities to ensure “full inclusion of antisemitism awareness and training as well as workplace religious accommodation requirements” in their diversity programming. Both reports also emphasize the need for clear mechanisms to report hate incidents and acts of anti-Semitism in schools and colleges and the importance of transparency, urging educational institutions to openly communicate the measures taken in response to such reports, and providing resources for students who have experienced intimidation, undue harassment, or violence based on their Jewish identity or perceived Jewish identity.

Finally, the taskforce echoed the U.S. National Strategy’s call for greater religious accommodations for Jewish students. Similar to a policy the USDA has undertaken to complete by this November, the taskforce recommended the creation of inclusive calendars with an outline of religious festivals and key calendar dates so that students, professors, and other faculty are aware of potential schedule conflicts. Accommodations for students and staff with specific religious needs, like access to kosher foods or alternative entry to university buildings on the Sabbath, should be provided, and information to access accommodations should be advertised publicly on university websites and prospectuses. The taskforce also recommended specific engagement plans around international conflicts (including the Israel-Palestine conflict) impacting campus relations to ensure both the protection of free speech and student safety. This should include a comprehensive risk assessment and a preparedness and engagement strategy, including dialogue with relevant student groups.

The release of this comprehensive report on anti-Semitism is a crucial step towards understanding anti-Semitism in higher education and taking steps to combat it. The report reflects that anti-Semitism manifests in similar ways on campuses in the U.S. and U.K. and that policymakers have identified similar steps to combat it – from the adoption of the IHRA Definition to improving the accommodation of Jewish students’ religious needs and the reporting of hate crimes against them. Studying the report and its implementation will consequently assist American policymakers in turning the recommendations in the U.S. National Strategy into concrete actions to protect Jewish students.